|
|
Home » City Government » Planning Commission » Minutes Archive; 2000 - 2002 » Planning Commission Minutes 2002 » April 24, 2002
April 24, 2002
The Lindon City Planning Commission held a regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, April 24, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. in the Lindon City Center Council Chambers at 100 North State Street, Lindon, Utah.
Conducting: Loren Morse, Chairman
Invocation: Bruce Carpenter
PRESENT
Loren Morse, Chairman (arrived 8:17 p.m.)
Ron Anderson, Commissioner
Lori Atchison, Commissioner
Bruce Carpenter, Commissioner
Jim Peters, Commissioner
Marilyn Simister, Commissioner
Lindsey Bayless, Councilmember
Kevin Smith, Planning Director
Venla Gubler, Administrative Clerk
Karen Devine, Planning Intern
ABSENT
Evan Nixon, Commissioner
The Meeting began at 7:09 P.M.
1. MINUTES
Review of the Minutes of April 10, 2002.
The minutes of the regular meeting of April 10, 2002 were reviewed. The following corrections were made:
Page 1, Line 12, 13: Commissioner Anderson was recorded as absent instead of present.
Page 3, Line 31: Move the word “the” from after the word “with” to after the word “Industries.”
Page 7, Line 32: Replace the word “Most” with the word “Some.”
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2002 AS CORRECTED. COMMISSIONER SIMISTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
3. NEW BUSINESS (Reports by Commissioners)
Commissioner Carpenter wondered if anyone had observed improvement in the parking situation at the chapel on Canal Drive. Mr. Smith replied that he had visited the site on Sunday and found only one car parked on the access sidewalk, however, that was the only improvement he observed. Acting Chairman Peters noted that the parking in the empty field had been blocked off. Mr. Smith added that the wards would prefer to work with their members to solve the situation before the City gets further involved. Commissioner Carpenter commented that any improvement usually happens when pressure is applied. He suggested that since nothing has happened, more pressure needs to be applied. Mr. Smith suggested a letter from the City to the Stake President with a time limit to correct the situation. Acting Chairman Peters suggested 30 days. Mr. Smith commented that the parking ordinance assumes that one ward will use the building at a time. He noted that this assumption is unrealistic and needs to be changed. Commissioner Carpenter recommended that the Planning Commission revisit the ordinance.
Acting Chairman Peters asked if there were other reports from Commissioners. Commissioner Anderson asked if the metal building being constructed behind a home on Geneva Road had a building permit. Mr. Smith replied yes and explained that the building was a private garage for the homeowner’s storage and use. He added that the garage met the light industrial zone standards. Commissioner Anderson expressed the opinion that the location was in the mixed commercial zone rather than the light industrial zone and asked if the standards would be different. Mr. Smith replied that he would check it out. Commissioner Carpenter asked what the procedures were when a possible mistake had been made like this. Mr. Smith explained that the permit had been issued and if a mistake has been made, the building would become a legal nonconforming use.
Commissioner Anderson reported a real estate sign that is a possible clear vision violation. There were no more reports from the Commissioners.
4. MCOMBER BUILDING PERMIT - 108 SOUTH DENALI DR. - GRADING PLAN APPROVAL REQUEST
This is a request for approval of the Grading Plan for Lot 7 of Canberra Heights Subdivision.
Mr. Smith presented the McOmber grading plan for approval of the Planning Commission under the hillside ordinance. He informed the Commission that the City Engineer, Mark Christensen, had reviewed the grading plan and had no concerns. Mr. Smith then raised the question of the hillside ordinance’s requirement that the building conform to the hillside rather than have abrupt, straight walls to the roof line. He asked the Commissioners if this building plan will comply with what the ordinance intends. Commissioner Anderson commented that appearance is a subjective subject. Mr. Smith agreed and noted that there is no set criteria for determining what conforms to the hillside, however, this will set the standard for the rest of the lots in the hillside overlay.
Acting Chairman Peters observed that the concern at the time the ordinance was adopted was that there be no three-story walls. He pointed out that this home had two and one-half stories exposed and some landscaping covering the basement. He noted that there are architectural treatments that break up the front elevation. Commissioner Anderson agreed with statement that the decision had been that two and one-half stories were okay, but 3 stories were too much.
The orientation of the house was determined. The home will face Denali Drive and back on the aqueduct and McKinley Drive. Commissioner Carpenter commented that the rear elevation is what will overlook the city. Acting Chairman Peters agreed and added that this elevation typifies the concerns of the Planning Commission and the City Council as adopted in the hillside ordinance. Commissioner Anderson and Commissioner Atchison made suggestions on how the home could be modified to break up the straight facade. Commissioner Carpenter read a passage from the ordinance of other suggestions to vary the facade. He expressed the opinion that balconies do not change the facade much. The various suggestions were discussed. Mr. Smith told the Commission that he would relay their concerns to Mr. McOmber and have him modify his plans.
Acting Chairman Peters asked if the Commission was ready to make a motion. Commissioner Carpenter suggested that it was premature to make a motion to approve the grading plan when the home plans may change. He observed that the grading plan may need adjustment if the home plan changes as discussed.
COMMISSIONER ATCHISON MOVED TO CONTINUE THE REQUEST FOR GRADING PLAN APPROVAL AS PRESCRIBED IN THE HILLSIDE PROTECTION DISTRICT AT 108 SOUTH DENALI DRIVE, CANBERRA HEIGHTS, PLAT “A,” LOT 7 FOR TWO WEEKS UNTIL MAY 8, 2002. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
5. CENTER STREET ESTATES - 900 EAST CENTER STREET - AMENDED FINAL SUBDIVISION REQUEST
This is a request to amend Lot 10 of Center Street Estates. The request if approved will split Lot 10, which is currently one acre, into two half acre residential building lots.
Mr. Smith commented that the Commission members were familiar with this agenda item. He pointed out that this is the lot that the developers had proposed for an R2 project. Mr. Bang and Mr. Olsen would now like to amend the final approval to make this one-acre lot into two one-half acre lots. Commissioner Carpenter questioned the access to Center Street with the substantial elevation change to the Murdock Canal. Mr. Bang replied that the elevation change would affect the east side of the nearest lot to the canal, but not the west side. Acting Chairman Peters asked if staff had any concerns with allowing access to Center Street. Mr. Smith replied that staff had no concerns. Commissioner Carpenter suggested that the site plan include a turn-around driveway so that residents are not backing onto Center Street. The applicants and the Commissioners discussed this suggestion.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE REQUEST TO AMEND THE FINAL PLAT FOR CENTER STREET ESTATES (NOW CALLED HIDDEN MEADOWS) DIVIDING LOT 10, A ONE-ACRE PARCEL, INTO TWO ONE-HALF ACRE LOTS. COMMISSIONER ATCHISON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS - ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
Continued from the April 10, 2002 meeting. This item is a proposed amendment and revision of Section 17.32.320 Deep Lots, of the Lindon City Code. The Planning Commission will consider language to clarify the purpose and intent section of the deep lot ordinance.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO OPEN THE CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE AMENDMENT AND REVISION OF SECTION 17.32.320 - DEEP LOTS - OF THE LINDON CITY CODE. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Smith commented that he had difficulty anticipating the variables of putting this proposed amendment into code language. He asked the Commissioners to note the reference to “the applicants” in line four. Commissioner Carpenter commented that this clause invites subdividers to sell their deep lots before they make application to have the lot approved. Mr. Smith agreed and asked the Commissioners’ opinion on how to handle parcels that have been sold without City subdivision approval. Acting Chairman Peters asked how much of a potential problem Lindon City may have with deep lots. Mr. Smith replied that the size of the problem is undetermined because the City does not see the problem until the owner applies for a building permit. Acting Chairman Peters asked how many lots have sufficient frontage to meet the other requirements of the ordinance. Mr Smith replied that there are potentially over 100 lots. Acting Chairman Peters commented that the problem is fairly large.
Mr. Smith discussed the amount of unsubdivided property in Lindon. He commented that a deep lot requires one-quarter to one-third more square footage than a regular lot because the ordinance requires 20,000 minimum square feet in the lot, exclusive of the driveway. He added that it is hard to forecast problems and identify future issues. He drew attention to clauses “b” and “f” that attempt to minimize and take into account these future issues and problems. He noted that he had considered clauses similar to the Board of Adjustment criteria, but felt that it was hard to apply to this situation.
Acting Chairman Peters asked, “What are the problems with deep lots?” Mr. Smith replied that the positive aspects of deep lots are that they allow utilization of parcels with larger acreage and odd shapes. The negative aspects are concerns with long, narrow driveways, long utility laterals, and maintaining open space. Some feel that the land should be left as pasture to contribute to Lindon’s country setting. Commissioner Carpenter asked if there was evidence that the long narrow driveways are a safety hazard. Mr. Smith replied that this subject may be better addressed by the fire marshal, and although the fire department prefers dedicated frontage, the current requirement for the width of the driveway meets the fire marshal’s conditions. He pointed out clause “d” that addresses the width of driveways.
Commissioner Anderson questioned the setback requirements on deep lots. He expressed concern about houses being close together and invading each other’s privacy. Councilmember Bayless agreed and cited an example of a home in Lindon. Mr. Smith explained that the setbacks are 20-feet for side yards, 30-feet for front yards and 50-feet for rear yards. Councilmember Bayless asked about a hypothetical situation of an original house which was set deep into the block and a potential second home which would be placed at an angle behind it in a deep lot. She wondered what the setback would be where the side yard of the second home backs up to the rear yard of the original home. Mr. Smith replied that the original home has a 30-foot rear yard and the second home has a 20-foot side yard, so the distance between the homes would be a minimum of 50-feet. Different orientations of the homes were examined and setbacks determined. It was suggested that a 30-foot front yard setback may not be sufficient for large homes on deep lots.
Commissioner Carpenter observed that clause “f” gives the Planning Commission and Council the latitude to deny an application that does not meet the intent section. He added that he felt the phrase “the applicants” is not needed. Acting Chairman Peters agreed. Commissioner Anderson felt the clause “f” made decisions arbitrary and capricious. He felt that concrete criteria was needed for denial rather than vague “considerations” and “constraints.” Commissioner Carpenter asked Commissioner Anderson if he preferred the time limit of five years. Commissioner Anderson expressed the opinion that the time limit would set some criteria. Acting Chairman Peters commented that setting a five year time limit would slow the development of deep lots. The Commission discussed development of deep lots. They touched on the deep lot discussion that sparked the adoption of the ordinance and the three deep lot applications approved since then.
Commissioner Carpenter commented that one of the conditions for a deep lot is that it is not practical to put in a street. Mr. Smith replied that it was more than not practical, it is not possible and there is no other way to develop the parcel. He pointed out that the Bentley parcel on East Center Street is a possible candidate for a deep lot. He added that although there have been negotiations in the past for access, the Bentleys still don’t have a street into their parcel. He asked if these previous negotiations were unacceptable to the Bentleys or not possible for them to do, will this be considered a hardship that will preclude them from deep lot approval, since they had the opportunity and failed to act on it at the time? Or is this the type of situation that typifies deep lot development as anticipated?
Acting Chairman Peters asked about deep lot ordinances in other cities. There was a discussion on the the contiguous driveways issue that Orem City allows. Acting Chairman Peters observed that the size or layout(rambler or multi-story) of the house on the deep lot could be a limiting condition for an approval. He felt that this conditions may lessen the impact of a deep lot on the neighborhood. Commissioner Anderson suggested that a clause “g” be added to limit the height of the home. Commissioner Carpenter expressed the opinion that if a home caused disruption in the flow of the neighborhood and/or is looking over into someone’s yard, the application could be denied under clause “f.” Commissioner Anderson felt it should be clearly written so that these conditions could not be construed as arbitrary or capricious.
Acting Chairman Peters verified that the proposed changes include adding a clause “g” that limits a building’s height to a single story no higher than 28 feet and striking “the applicants” from line four in paragraph one. He asked if there were other changes or comments.
Mr. Harlow Clark verified that this deep lot ordinance could only be applied to those parcels where there is no other option for development. The Commissioners agreed and commented that the most challenging issue of this is the illegal lots that could be created. Mr. Smith agreed that if an application for a deep lot is not made to the City, the City is not aware of its creation. There would be no cloud on the title for the buyer to be made aware that a building permit may be a challenge.
Chairman Morse arrived at 8:17 p.m.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE REQUEST TO AMEND AND REVISE CHAPTER 17.32.320 - DEEP LOTS, AS ATTACHED WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. ADD PARAGRAPH “G” TO LIMIT THE BUILDING HEIGHT TO A SINGLE STORY NO HIGHER THAN 28-FEET, AND
2. STRIKE THE PARENTHETICAL “THE APPLICANT’S” FROM LINE FOUR OF PARAGRAPH ONE.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR EXCEPT CHAIRMAN MORSE WHO ABSTAINED. THE MOTION CARRIED.
Acting Chairman Peters relinquished the chair to Chairman Morse.
7. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
7a. 17.06. - Definition of Inoperable Motor Vehicle: The Planning Commission will review and possibly make a recommendation to the City Council to amend and update the definition of “inoperable motor vehicle” as found in the Lindon City Code.
Mr. Smith reminded the Commissioners of the previous discussion on this item and observed that he had received a lot of information from the American Planning Association in response to his request for a definition of an inoperable motor vehicle. He proposed this first draft for the Commissioners’ consideration.
Commissioner Peters questioned Standard One of the proposed amendment which states that a vehicle shall be considered inoperable if the fair market value is equal only to the value of the scrap and accessories in it. Mr. Smith explained that many vehicle owners feel that their car is worth more than the market value. He described a local motor home owner who feels that his vehicle can be restored and is worth more than its scrap value. Commissioner Anderson asked why the storage of the motor home is bothering the neighbors. Mr. Smith explained that one neighbor feels that he has lost a sale on his home because of the “junk” in the neighborhood.
Chairman Morse observed that the presence of a large number of inoperable motor vehicles makes them more obvious. Commissioner Peters suggested that the ordinance specify a limit. Mr. Smith pointed out that the ordinance already has a limit of ten in the commercial, industrial and manufacturing zones and a limit of one in the residential zones. He added that this standard of determining an inoperable vehicle’s value is from the State of Washington Code.
Commissioner Peters read from a news bulletin in his Packard Club subscription. He expressed his concern that the cities are gaining too much power over private property. He added that he is not opposed to the ordinance, he just feels that Lindon City should be cautious. Mr. Smith recalled the discussion that initiated this revision of the definition of inoperable vehicle. He described the vehicles at a local business that the owner claims are operable, but have sat there on his lot and not moved for four years. He described some of the other complaints that he had received. He agreed that there is potential for a zoning administrator to be overzealous, but Lindon has some problems that need resolution.
Commissioner Anderson observed that many residents have moved to Lindon for the bigger lots. Mr. Smith agreed and commented that the problem occurs when there are multiple vehicles. He read from the current ordinance which allows a resident one vehicle to repair or restore, providing the owner makes reasonable progress and that not more than one vehicle is involved. He pointed out that Standard Two of the conditions states that an inoperable vehicle is one stored in plain view of the public and has not moved for a period of 90 days. This would allow most owners who are repairing or restoring a vehicle to move it out of sight or complete their project. Commissioner Peters agreed that requiring a inoperable vehicle to be kept out of sight is reasonable, however, his objection was to the City trying to decide the value of a vehicle. Mr. Smith replied that the City would not be making the valuation, but a judge or an appraiser appointed by the judge. Chairman Morse commented that the value of a scrap vehicle is usually about $100. Commissioner Peters noted that the clause states that the fair market value is equal to the value of “the parts and the accessories.”
Mr. Smith explained that most residents who are contacted remove the offending vehicle quickly. There are just a few that challenge, and they usually challenge with the claim that the vehicle is not inoperable and has value. This amendment will clarify the definition of inoperable and allow the City to pursue a court order to have the vehicles removed. Chairman Morse commented that those residents that are in the business of restoring old vehicles will typically have a shop in which to do their work. Commissioner Peters agreed.
Commissioner Carpenter expressed a concern about the conditions being connected by an “or.” He expressed concern also about requiring residents to keep their vehicles out of sight. He pointed out that a resident should possibly be allowed to keep a vehicle in their back pasture. He suggested that the “chronicity” of the problem is what should be restricted. Those persons that do not work on their vehicles and take their time repairing or restoring the vehicle are creating the problem. Commissioner Anderson agreed and noted that if the neighbors could see progress and an end to the vehicle being stored and creating a junk yard, they would probably not complain. He also commented that some restorers bring in a parts vehicle that requires storage. Mr. Smith asked if he was suggesting that the limit be raised to two vehicles in the residential zones–one for repair and one for parts. Commissioner Anderson replied that this was more a defensible definition. Mr. Smith commented that he was looking for criteria that defines an inoperable vehicle other than “it looks inoperable.”
Commissioner Carpenter observed that the ordinance allows a resident to fix one car at a time. If a resident has more than a hobby, then they must have a sight obscuring fence. Commissioner Peters agreed that the parts car should be kept out of sight. Commissioner Anderson suggested that the biggest problem is not the collector, but the high school kids that break down in the front yard and take long periods of time fixing the car.
Mr. Harlow Clark asked how this ordinance will affect the two Mercedes stored on the side of north State Street. Mr. Smith replied that this area is zoned commercial. Commissioner Carpenter asked about the final drafting of the ordinance. He asked if the first section will be the definition and then a section each for the residential and commercial zones. Mr. Smith replied that he will take this first draft back and incorporate the Commissioners’ suggestions into a final draft. Commissioner Carpenter asked if the final draft would discuss limits on numbers of vehicles, time frames and storage. Mr. Smith replied that these items would be incorporated.
Mr. Smith initiated discussion on the existing ordinance and which clauses are to remain as written. Various commercial auto repair and auto sales businesses were used as examples and discussed. Commissioner Peters suggested that the clause about the value of the vehicle not be included in the final draft. He expressed the opinion that the City should not be the decision authority on the value of a vehicle.
7b. 17.61.020 (1) - Sexually Oriented Businesses: The Planning Commission will review and possibly make a recommendation to the City Council to add 700 North as a “Gateway” street.
Mr. Smith introduced this proposed amendment to designate 700 North from State Street to the freeway as a “Gateway.” The Sexually Oriented Business ordinance restricts these businesses from locating within 165-feet of a street with a “Gateway” designation. He proposed this change because 700 North is likely to become a large thoroughfare and arterial to Lindon City. Commissioner Carpenter asked where the sexually oriented businesses are allowed to locate. Mr. Smith replied that the heavy industrial zone is where they are allowed. Commissioner Simister asked why these businesses are allowed in Lindon at all. Mr. Smith explained that the courts have ruled that sexual expression is a protected right and must not be denied. He observed that the restrictions within the ordinance are “not easy” to comply with, but the use is allowed.
COMMISSIONER PETERS MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE REQUEST TO ADD THE FUTURE 700 NORTH STREET BETWEEN 2000 WEST AND STATE STREET AS A “GATEWAY” STREET AS DEFINED IN CHAPTER 17.61. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
7c. 17.48.100 - PC-1 Land Use Table: The Planning Commission will review and possibly make a recommendation to the City Council to repeal the Standard Land Use Table which is now out dated from the Planned Commercial section of the Lindon City Code.
Mr. Smith noted that this item had been taken care of previously when the Standard Land Use Table was adopted. It is unnecessary to repeal it again.
7d. 17.66.010 - Water Stock Requirement in LI and HI Zones: The Planning Commission will review and possibly make a recommendation to the City Council to amend and update the amount of water shares required to be turned into the City to develop property west of Geneva Road.
Mr. Smith explained that Lindon City does not have a secondary water system west of Geneva Road. The fee schedule adopted yearly by the City Council has set the water share requirements for development west of Geneva Road at one-half share of North Union Canal Company shares as the base requirement for a net acre of development. The current ordinance has set the requirement at one share for one net acre of development. The requirement needs to be amended in the ordinance to match the fee schedule. The Commissioners discussed the use of the water for culinary needs in the area. Mr. Smith commented that if secondary water is used in the area in the future, the requirement will need to be increased. Water rights and future development of the area west of Geneva were briefly discussed.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE REQUEST TO AMEND SECTION 17.66.010 - TRANSFER OF ONE-HALF SHARE OF WATER STOCK FOR PROPERTY WEST OF GENEVA ROAD IN LIEU OF THE CURRENT STANDARD OF ONE SHARE FOR THE SAME. COMMISSIONER ATCHISON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
8. SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - 18.04.020 - AMENDMENT TO NONCONFORMING SIGNS SECTION
The Planning Commission will review and possibly make a recommendation to the City Council to repeal the current requirement to bring nonconforming signs into compliance with current ordinances when only the sign face and or text of the sign is changed.
Mr. Smith commented that this amendment had been recommended by the City Attorney about two years ago. This amendment has nothing to do with the other nonconforming signs issue that the City Attorney is working on now. This allows a business owner to change the copy, the paint, or other superficial item on a nonconforming sign without having to bring the sign into compliance by constructing a low profile sign.
Commissioner Carpenter asked how the City will amortize these nonconforming signs into compliance. Mr. Smith replied that this issue will be part of the new ordinance and explained how it may work. He noted that there are only nine nonconforming signs in Lindon. Chairman Morse verified that this amendment would allow an owner to change only the way the sign looks, not its structure.
COMMISSIONER PETERS MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE REQUEST TO AMEND CHAPTER 18.04.020 - ALTERATIONS OF NONCONFORMING SIGNS AS ATTACHED. COMMISSIONER SIMISTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
9. PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT
1. Reminder of Local Government Trust Training May 17 and 18 at the Provo City Library.
Mr. Smith reminded the Commissioners of the Local Government Trust Training May 17 and 18 at the Provo City Library. He mentioned that the items brought before the Commission tonight and in future meetings are housekeeping amendments to the code that have been contemplated for some time. He presented the Commission with street master plans from 1968 to the present and discussed changes over the years.
Mr. Smith reported that staff has met with property owners, builders and commercial real estate brokers to initiate planning for the west side of Lindon.
ADJOURN
THE COMMISSIONERS REACHED CONSENSUS TO ADJOURN AT 9:36 P.M.
APPROVED - May 8, 2002
_______________________________________
Loren Morse, Chairman
Attest,
_______________________________________
Kevin Smith, Planning Director |
|
|
